iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Mullen Worried By Declining Support For Afghan War

RICHARD LARDNER   08/23/09 10:50 PM ET   AP

Afghanistan

WASHINGTON — As public support for the war in Afghanistan erodes, President Barack Obama soon may face two equally unattractive choices: increase U.S. troops levels to beat back a resilient enemy, or stick with the 68,000 already committed and risk the political fallout if that's not enough.

Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, is completing an assessment of what he needs to win the fight there. That review, however, won't specifically address force levels, according to Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

But military officials privately believe McChrystal may ask for as many as 20,000 additional forces to get an increasingly difficult security situation in Afghanistan under control. And one leading Republican is already saying McChrystal will be pressured to ask for fewer troops than he requires.

"I think there are great pressures on General McChrystal to reduce those estimates," said Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., in an interview broadcast Sunday. "I don't think it's necessarily from the president. I think it's from the people around him and others that I think don't want to see a significant increase in our troops' presence there."

Mullen on Sunday described the situation in Afghanistan as "serious and deteriorating," but refused to say whether additional forces would be needed.

"Afghanistan is very vulnerable in terms of (the) Taliban and extremists taking over again, and I don't think that threat's going to go away," he said.

Mullen also expressed concern about diminishing support among a war-weary American public as the U.S. and NATO enter their ninth year of combat and reconstruction operations.

In joint TV interviews, Mullen and U.S. Ambassador Karl Eikenberry said last week's presidential election in Afghanistan was historic, given the threats of intimidation voters faced as they headed to polling stations. It could be several weeks, however, before it's known whether incumbent Hamid Karzai or one of his challengers won.

"We're not sure exactly what the level of voter turnout was," said Eikenberry, a retired three-star Army general. "Taliban intimidation, especially in southern Afghanistan, certainly limited those numbers."

Charges of fraud in the election are extensive enough to possibly sway the final result, and the number of allegations is likely to grow, according to the commission investigating the complaints.

The independent Electoral Complaints Commission has received 225 complaints since the start of Thursday's vote, including 35 allegations that are "material to the election results," said Grant Kippen, the head of the U.N.-backed body.

President Obama's strategy for defeating the Taliban and al-Qaida is a work in progress as more U.S. troops are sent there, Mullen said.

Three years ago, the U.S. had about 20,000 forces in the country. Today, it has triple that, on the way to 68,000 by year's end when all the extra 17,000 troops that Obama announced in March are to be in place. An additional 4,000 troops are arriving to help train Afghan forces. More civilian workers are going as well to help rebuild Afghanistan's economy and government.

Mullen said the security situation in Afghanistan needs to be reversed in the next 12 month to 18 months.

"I think it is serious and it is deteriorating, and I've said that over the last couple of years, that the Taliban insurgency has gotten better, more sophisticated," he said.

Just over 50 percent of respondents to a Washington Post-ABC News poll released this past week said the war in Afghanistan is not worth fighting.

Mullen, a Vietnam veteran, said he's aware that public support for the war is critical. "Certainly the numbers are of concern," he said. But, he added, "this is the war we're in."

"I recognize that we've been there over eight years," he said. "But this is the first time we've really resourced a strategy on both the civilian and military sides. So in certain ways, we're starting anew."

"We're just getting the pieces in place from the president's new strategy on the ground now," he said. "I don't see this as a mission of endless drift. I think we know what to do."

McChrystal's orders from Mullen and Defense Secretary Robert Gates was "to go out, assess where you are, and then tell us what you need," Mullen said. "And we'll get to that point. And I want to, I guess, assure you or reassure you that he hasn't asked for any additional troops up until this point in time."

McCain, the top Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, said McChrystal should say exactly how many troops he needs, let the Congress debate it and Obama would make the ultimate decision.

McChrystal and other military leaders in Afghanistan should use the same aggressive "clear and hold" approach that Gen. David Petraeus used successfully in Iraq, McCain added. That will create a secure environment for people so that economic and political progress can be made, he said.

On the question of what it will take to turn the tide in Afghanistan, McCain echoed Mullen's projection: "I think within a year to 18 months you could start to see progress."

McCain acknowledged that public opinion on Afghanistan is slipping. But he said that opinion could be reversed.

"I think you need to see a reversal of these very alarming and disturbing trends on attacks, casualties, areas of the country that the Taliban has increased control of."

Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana, the top Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said Obama's leadership on Afghanistan is key to bolstering public support.

"He really can't just leave this to the Congress, to General McChrystal, and say, 'Folks, sort of, discuss this,' after the report comes in," Lugar said.

Mullen and Eikenberry appeared on NBC's "Meet the Press" and CNN's "State of the Union." Lugar was on CNN. McCain's interview Friday with ABC's "This Week" was aired Sunday.

___

On the Net:

Defense Department: http://www.defenselink.mil/

FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS

WASHINGTON — As public support for the war in Afghanistan erodes, President Barack Obama soon may face two equally unattractive choices: increase U.S. troops levels to beat back a resilient enem...
WASHINGTON — As public support for the war in Afghanistan erodes, President Barack Obama soon may face two equally unattractive choices: increase U.S. troops levels to beat back a resilient enem...
Filed by Rachel Weiner  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 209
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (7 total)
02:54 PM on 08/24/2009
Its been nearly 8 years since there was any support for the war. End it now.
12:02 PM on 08/24/2009
What if they planned a war and nobody showed up for it?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
JoeBlough
The Horror. . .The Horror. . .
11:05 AM on 08/24/2009
It was a vanity war, so Bush could impress an un-loving father. We have no business there. It's their country and their culture. We can ki ill them all we want, but it won't change anything. We have history against us.
10:47 AM on 08/24/2009
Declining support? What support. The war of choice was ramrodded by Bush in both countries years ago with no public support. Every election since has been clearly to bring the troops home from an immoral war which didn't need to be fought. In both cases, no real reason to engage, no plan of action on reaching a goal and no exit stragety of how to get out. Iraq and Afganistan are self inflicted wounds which have cost America dearly. And what are you going to say when you come home a loser, "I'm sorry" is not good enough.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
Chernynkaya
10:49 PM on 08/23/2009
Why are we in Afghanistsn? The stated objective is to fight AlQaida, but we don't need thousands of troops to do that at a cost of $750,000 A MONTH PER TROOP. Let the special forces do what they can and call it a day.

The Taliban- horrible as they are, are not enemies of the US- just enemies of Afghanistanis. We need to get out ASAP and use the money here. There is no way we can do much there and the cost is far to great. Our priorities seem a little f'd up from my perspective.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
RudyHaugeneder
01:54 AM on 08/24/2009
Vietnam Two.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
JoeBlough
The Horror. . .The Horror. . .
11:07 AM on 08/24/2009
"Our priorities seem a little f'd up from my perspective.
" - that pretty much sums up the Republican Philosophy.
08:35 PM on 08/23/2009
And if we work really hard we can have Kabul up to the New Orleans standard by the end of 2011.
08:27 PM on 08/23/2009
Just got up from laughing after reading this line of the article:
"More civilian workers are going as well to help rebuild Afghanistan's economy and government."

Because Americans are doing such a bang up job with the economy in America????

Oh, and do those troop numbers include private contractor mercenaries?

In other words, this is our "story" about why we're in Afghanistan and we're sticking to it!
(Truth be damned),
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
wwoody
Retired fishing for the truth.
08:18 PM on 08/23/2009
were looking at our watch, and our enemies is looking at the calendar. So who do think is going to win in the end. Time is on the their side. This war is another Vietnam all over again.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
JoeBlough
The Horror. . .The Horror. . .
11:09 AM on 08/24/2009
They aren't our enemy. We invaded them.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
wwoody
Retired fishing for the truth.
08:11 PM on 08/23/2009
It is time to go.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
MaybeMilo
"You can't fight in here. This is the War room!"
08:05 PM on 08/23/2009
For the life of me I can't figure out why we decided to occupy that place, of all things, and why we still insist on doing so.

It took us how long to scatter the Taliban from the air?

Use the bad guys for target practice, but keep boots on the ground to a minimum. If we decide to occupy this place ad infinitum, we've lost by "winning."

It's not like the planning for 9/11 required a whole lot of technological infrastructure.

That's my rant, anyway.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
07:56 PM on 08/23/2009
An alliance of liberal Democrats (because of Obama) and neo-Cons are pushing to escalate in Afghanistan and to maintain substantial residual forces in Iraq against US interests and our ability to fund these wars. As a result, despite a heavily Democratic House and Senate and a President who won because he effectively misrepresented himself as against the Iraq War when he didn't have to vote on it, the government passed a Bush-clone $100+ billion supplemental appropriation for Iraq and Afghanistan this year. In addition, the Obama is dishonestly creating a fantasy that Afghanistan is a war of "necessity" and not a war of "choice" -- a lie even greater than the ones told by Bush, Rice, Powell, Rumsfeld, Cheney, etc. about Iraq having WMDs and being involved in 9/11. He's lying, claiming that a country geometrically weaker militarily and economically than the US with a friendly puppet government is a threat to our national interests warranting that we fight an unaffordable war.

The liberals lie and act as if it takes years to pull out of wars we cannot afford and shouldn't be in anyway, claiming the commander-in-chief (Obama) doesn't have the authority to get out.

The liberal Democrats are as complicit in the murder and maiming as the neo-Cons are now.

So the fact the American people want out immediately and safely, and voted that way in the past 2 federal elections, gets ignored by Obama, who has the authority to end both occupations.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
07:47 PM on 08/23/2009
Trying to conduct an 'election' in a nation which is

1) in the midst of a civil war,
2) under foreign occupation,
3) populated by people whose primary identification and allegiance isn't with their nation, but their tribe, followed by their faith,
4) has little or no history as a democracy,
5) in which organised crime/drug trafficking is the main industry
and finally
6) possesses neither a functioning civil society nor an effective rule of law

was stupid idea at the best of times.
07:24 PM on 08/23/2009
Yeah, I mean the war has only been going for 7 years.
Get it done, or get out.
07:55 PM on 08/23/2009
There is nothing to "get done".....Afghanistan is in the throes of a civil war and religious fight. We should take a cue from Alwxander the Great, the Brtiish Empire, the Ottomans, the Moguls, the Russians and get out of there....This "war on terror' is bogus to begin with....good police action and an alert government could have prevented 9/11 in the first place....get out of Afghanistan or it will come here.....like Viet Nam....private armies can do only so much until the people realize what is happening....
07:19 PM on 08/23/2009
We went to Afghanistan to get bin-Laden; he's not there, so why are we? It didn't occur to the Bushs that re-educating a Muslim country to adopt democracy might not merely be a matter of bombing them into submission. Come to think of it, that hasn't occurred to Obama, either. None of these presidents ever learned the only folks these tribesmen hate more than each other are infidels messing with their territory or system of beliefs. The government didn't bother researching the anthropological arguments against our involvement in Muslim affairs until well after we were involved. Now, we're in Afghanistan fighting to make a present of democracy to a people who don't want it enough to fight for it themselves.

The Brits learned not to mess with the Pashtuns, the Russians learned the same lesson but like Bush,Obama hasn't learned from history, either. Anyone want to guess how long the Afghans will "stay democratized" once we're gone? The blood of every Marine and Soldier who dies now, is on Obama's hands.
07:56 PM on 08/23/2009
Wrong...we went there because the neocons see military adventures as a way to exert power and influence and to make money. There is nothing noble about it...
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
09:23 PM on 08/23/2009
...then why to we remain? Are the democrats interested in the same thing...?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
RickCoMatic
End WAR Spending! Rebuild AMERICA!
07:05 PM on 08/23/2009
My vote for President Obama was a vote to END the War and bring the Troops back home.
That's what he promised. That's what I expect.
Bring home the Troops and end the wars and the Health Care Initiative has enough money to fund House Calls.
If the Administration is going to escalate War in Afghanastan that burns money and gets American's killed because Osama Bin Laden is batter at playing "Hide-'n-seek", ... I vote NO. Get out.
Get it over with.
I'm tired of funding losing causes that gets American G.I.'s shipped home in a Flag-draped box.